The purpose of our audit was to determine whether the BOP ensures that federal inmates benefit from its programs designed to prepare inmates for successful reentry into society.† The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the BOP ensures that each of its institutions maximize the number inmates that complete programs designed to prepare inmates for reentry into society including occupational, educational, psychological, and other programs; and all eligible inmates are provided the opportunity to transition through a CCC in preparation for reentry into society.

We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.† We included such tests as were necessary to accomplish the audit objectives.

We conducted fieldwork at the BOP Central Office, and conducted field work and/or obtained information through questionnaires from the following BOP regional offices and institutions:

Northeast Regional Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

South Central Regional Office, Dallas, Texas;

FPC Alderson, Alderson, West Virginia;

USP Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania;

USP Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia;

FCI Bastrop, Bastrop, Texas;

FCI Beaumont, Beaumont, Texas;

FCI Beckley, Beaver, West Virginia;

FCI Butner, Butner, North Carolina;

FPC Eglin, Eglin, Florida;

FCI El Reno, El Reno, Oklahoma;

FCI Elkton, Elkton, Ohio;

FCI Englewood, Englewood, Colorado;

ADX Florence, Florence, Colorado;

FCI Florence and the adjacent camp, Florence, Colorado;

USP Florence, Florence, Colorado;

FCI Fort Dix, Fort Dix, New Jersey;

FCI Greenville, Greenville, Illinois;

USP Leavenworth, Leavenworth, Kansas;

USP Lompoc, Lompoc, California;

USP Marion, Marion, Illinois;

FCI Milan, Milan, Michigan;

FCI Morgantown, Morgantown, West Virginia;

FPC Pensacola, Pensacola, Florida;

FCI Safford, Safford, Arizona;

FCI Sandstone, Sandstone, Minnesota;

FPC Seymour Johnson, Goldsboro, North Carolina;

USP Terre Haute, Terre Haute, Indiana; and

FPC Yankton, Yankton, South Dakota.

We also examined reported data for the 82 institutions listed in the following table.

Institution

Security Level

Institution

Security Level

ADX Florence

Maximum

FCI Petersburg

Low

FCI Allenwood

Low

FCI Petersburg

Medium

FCI Allenwood

Medium

FCI Phoenix

Medium

FCI Ashland

Low

FCI Ray Brook

Medium

FCI Bastrop

Low

FCI Safford

Low

FCI Beaumont

Low

FCI Sandstone

Low

FCI Beaumont

Medium

FCI Schuylkill

Medium

FCI Beckley

Medium

FCI Seagoville

Low

FCI Big Spring

Low

FCI Sheridan

Medium

FCI Butner

Low

FCI Talladega

Medium

FCI Butner

Medium

FCI Tallahassee

Low

FCI Coleman

Low

FCI Terminal Island

Medium

FCI Coleman

Medium

FCI Texarkana

Low

FCI Cumberland

Medium

FCI Three Rivers

Medium

FCI Danbury

Low

FCI Tucson

Medium

FCI Dublin

Low

FCI Victorville

Medium

FCI Edgefield

Medium

FCI Waseca

Low

FCI El Reno

Medium

FCI Yazoo City

Low

FCI Elkton

Low

FPC Alderson

Minimum

FCI Englewood

Medium

FPC Allenwood

Minimum

FCI Estill

Medium

FPC Bryan

Minimum

FCI Fairton

Medium

FPC Duluth

Minimum

FCI Florence

Medium

FPC Eglin

Minimum

FCI Forrest City

Low

FPC Montgomery

Minimum

FCI Fort Dix

Low

FPC Nellis

Minimum

FCI Greenville

Medium

FPC Pensacola

Minimum

FCI Jesup

Medium

FPC Seymour Johnson

Minimum

FCI La Tuna

Low

FPC Yankton

Minimum

FCI Lompoc

Low

USP Allenwood

High

FCI Loretto

Low

USP Atlanta

High

FCI Manchester

Medium

USP Atwater

High

FCI Marianna

Medium

USP Beaumont

High

FCI McKean

Medium

USP Coleman

High

FCI Memphis

Medium

USP Florence

High

FCI Miami

Medium

USP Leavenworth

High

FCI Milan

Low

USP Lee

High

FCI Morgantown

Minimum

USP Lewisburg

High

FCI Oakdale

Medium

USP Lompoc

High

FCI Otisville

Medium

USP Marion

High

FCI Oxford

Medium

USP Pollock

High

FCI Pekin

Medium

USP Terre Haute

High

The 82 institutions include the ADX and all FCIs, FPCs, and USPs.† We excluded the FDCs, FMCs, FTCs, MCCs, MCFPs, and MDCs because of the unique missions of these institutions.

To determine the percentage of the educational and occupational goals achieved, we obtained the Annual Program Report for Education and Recreation Services for FY 1999 through FY 2002 for each institution included in our audit.† We compared the completion goals and outcomes reported for each institutionís GED, ESL, ACE, parenting, and occupational programs and determined the percentage of goal achieved, which equates to the outcome divided by goal.† Additionally, for FY 2002 we compared the National Strategic Plan performance indicator goal and outcome for the percent of inmates enrolled in one or more education programs for each institution and determined the percentage of goal obtained.

To determine the percentage of the CCC utilization targets achieved for each institution during FY 2000 through 2002, we obtained the total number of inmates transferred to a CCC and total number of inmates released directly to the community as reported in the BOPís Key Indicators system.48† To calculate the CCC utilization rate for each institution, which equates to the number of inmates transferred to a CCC divided by the number of inmates transferred to a CCC plus the number of inmates released directly into the community.† We then compared the CCC utilization rate for each institution to the BOPís goal for that security level and determined the percentage of the goal achieved which equates to the outcome divided by goal.

To determine the GED performance factor for each institution during FY 1999 through FY 2002, we obtained the total number of completions and withdrawals from the BOPís Key Indicators system.† We then calculated the GED
performance factor, which equates to completions divided by completions plus withdrawals.† Additionally, to determine the GED performance factor based on voluntary withdrawals for each institution, we obtained the total number of completions and voluntary withdrawals from the BOPís Key Indicators system.† We then calculated the GED performance factor, which equates to completions divided by completions plus voluntary withdrawals.

To determine the percentage of citizen inmates required to participate in the literacy program that have dropped out and are therefore not promotable above the maintenance pay grade for work programs, we obtained the percentage of GED Dropped Non-promotable (GED DN) from the BOPís Key Indicators system for FY 1999 through FY 2002.† Additionally, to determine the percentage of noncitizen inmates required participate in the literacy program that have dropped out and are therefore not promotable above the maintenance pay grade for work programs, we obtained the percentage of Exempt GED Non-promotable (GED XN) from the BOPís Key Indicators system.

Finally, to determine the occupational technical and vocational performance factors for each institution during FY 1999 through FY 2002, we obtained the total number of completions and withdrawals from the BOPís Key Indicators system.† We then calculated the occupational technical performance factor, which equates to completions divided by completions plus withdrawals.

Footnotes

The BOP, Key Indicators, A Strategic Support System of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Volume 14, Number 1, January 2003.